Comments on: Eagles, Cowboys players authorize union decertificationhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/
ProFootballTalk on NBCSports.comTue, 31 Mar 2015 22:19:56 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: EverybodyGotAIDShttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780241
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:42:37 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780241Steve, you can just say you’re wrong. It’s ok ;)
Revenue has been growing (as far as I know) pretty much every year for the NFL, so the piece of pie given to owners and players is still growing, and yes, adding 2 games will add more revenue (maybe not a full 12.5%, but some portion – call it 5%), but your idea to peg player salaries to revenue as a way to NOT keep it as a set percentage of revenue was just moronic (no offense). The players and owners should come and agree that the players will receive 55% of revenue, or that the players and owners will receive a split of profits, rather than revenue (so operating expenses will already be taken out so if expenses were to rise for some reason, everyone would get the same piece of a proportionately smaller pie) and we can all get on with our lives.
]]>By: Steve W.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780240
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:03:50 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780240@ everybodygotaids
Because, the revenue has already increased from last year, and the increase to 18 regular season games would increase revenue even further. So, 60% of last year’s revenue would not be the same thing as 60% of next year’s revenue. That differential, in turn, would continue to grow as revenue increased. While it might not seem a tremendous initial differential, what we’re talking about here is a revenue stream. So, in this case the initial differential experiences a multiplicative effect in it’s growth.
In other words, yes, mathematics is important to economists, we simply don’t ignore changes that occur over the years. Then again, looking back at it, it’s little more than a percentage readjustment (with the readjustment primarily coming from the increased revenue of expanding the regular season). Even then, it has a fatal flaw. It presupposes that they could make the contract alterations with the networks and ESPN before the new contract took effect. What the heck, I was half asleep when I came up with it anyway.
]]>By: edgy1957http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780239
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:41:07 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780239Shark839 says:
You may not like Jerry but if you want to talk about risk. He sunk ALL of his money into the Dallas Cowboys, while they were losing money.
*************************
On what planet where you on when this happened? The Cowboys, even at 3-13, were one of the Top 5 teams in merchandising and their share of that paid a lot of bills. All teams also didn’t pay out as much of their salaries as they do NOW and there was no such thing as free agency (Plan B wouldn’t go into effect until 1989) AND the TV contract money DOUBLED, the year after he bought the Cowboys. The team WASN’T losing ANY MONEY and NO TEAM in the NFL at that time was.
]]>By: edgy1957http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780238
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:22:59 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780238Amazing what 23 years can do. The Cowboys were one of the franchises that short-circuited everything in 1987 when they were shaky, at best, before it all happened and then when a few of their players came back after the second week of play.
]]>By: edgy1957http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780237
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:17:38 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780237Hauschild says:
Strick:
The only problem with your analogy is the fact America crushed the Soviets precisely because we
******************************
Except that’s NOT true. What bankrupted the Soviets were all the arms and armor that they used in Afghanistan and having to replace them. Plus, they built MORE of anything that we had because they felt that since they couldn’t overwhelm us with technology, they would do it in shear numbers, which is why they had so many missiles, tanks, ships and submarines.
As for the rest of your tripe: seriously, do you even have an idea of what this is about? When you say “The players will receive what the market dictates. The owners will not pay more than the market dictates, or they soon would find themselves with no franchise”, you’ve pretty much shown that you don’t. This isn’t about getting MORE from the owners, it’s about keeping what they have. The owners want them to give back more of the money that the PLAYERS are getting and if they’re not careful, it may go back to the pre-union days when the owners paid for a few uniform items but the players supplied their own helmets. The owners want money BACK from the union so they can build more palaces BUT they don’t want to share in that new found revenue, even though they will essentially get someone else to pay for their palace while they reap the rewards.
You can talk free markets all you want but you’re NOT talking the NFL. There would be no way in hell that a group of like businesses in this country could get together and negotiate deals like the NFL without being hit by some kind of anti-trust law suit unless they have an anti-trust exemption like the NFL.
How would you feel like if you came out of Harvard law and you got ONE and only one offer and you had to take it or leave it? Would YOU just be happy to be getting a job or would you go bag groceries because that’s what “the real people’ do? Why is it that YOU expect the players to give up rights that you’d fight to the death to have? The NFL and other sports leagues are unlike anything that YOU have to put up with in your life. Stop being jealous. Oh and I’ll leave your anti-union rant go because it’s obvious that you wouldn’t listen to reason when it comes to what they HAVE meant to you and your fellow employees.
]]>By: sportsbruh3http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780236
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:11:21 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780236Steve W.
You Da Man!
]]>By: EverybodyGotAIDShttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780235
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:53:45 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780235“How about this for a compromise? Do the expansion to 18 games that the owners want so that overall revenue will be increased. Then, move away from the revenue percentage model for this one cba and create a hybrid salary structure. Take last years numbers and use that as the base for the overall player salary. In other words, whatever 60% of this past years revenues were will be the allotted total salary for players in the first year of the cba. The players keep what they have, and the owners start out with the initial revenue boost that the switch to 18 regular season games would bring. Now, from this point, you peg the change in total player salary to the change in revenue. If revenue goes up by 3%, then the total player salary pool goes up by 3%. ”
_____________
Steve, basic math, dude. Basic math.
How exactly is that different than saying that player salaries will account for 60% of revenue? If it’s 60% now…..and you peg it to revenue….if revenue were to go to 110% of what it is now…..that would mean the player salaries would go to 110% of what it is now…..110% of 60% is 66%…..66% is 6/10 of 110%. It’s the same thing. And you want to claim that you’re a grad student? Apparently math isn’t particularly important in economics.
]]>By: edgy1957http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780234
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:52:49 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780234chargerrich says: September 17, 2010 9:42 AM
The owners took risks, especially the older owners and their decendents who started this whole thing.
*********************
So, you mean that the Chicago Bears, who were supposed to pay $100 to join the league but DIDN’T, took a lot of risk? Remember, when they formed the NFL, professional football was NOTHING and they paid their players NOTHING. The funny thing is that it took a PLAYER, Red Grange, to give the NFL the credibility to actually make money. Yes, that’s right, a PLAYER saved the league and it’s been the PLAYERS that have made it so that the owners can make money.
]]>By: Scourgehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780233
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:48:38 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780233I think the NFL is doomed long-term.
It’s a brutal sport, there’s only at most 20 to 24 games a year, including pre-season and post-season, stadiums don’t sell out all the time, players want big money and security, owners want control and big profits, the commissioner is a greedy expansionist moron who wants to go international, there’s no professional developmental league – only a no-frills college drafting program…
Quality athletes have a better chance at a career in other sports like Baseball.
As great as the NFL can be, it’s also its own worst enemy.
]]>By: EverybodyGotAIDShttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780232
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:33:17 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780232Steve,
Yes and no. The NFL operates as a cartel…to an extent. The NFL is the leading football league in the country (and world) because they were around first and were able to develop their fanbases. It’s a “chicken or the egg” scenario, to an extent. Why does the NFL have the best talent? Because they offer the most money. Why do they offer the most money? Because they have the highest revenue. Why do they have the highest revenue? Because they have the best talent. And so on it repeats.
If the NFL shut down tomorrow, or better yet, decided not to deal with a union anymore (forget for a minute about the legal ramifications), and they figured “Hey, we’re going to pay our guys like regular working people. $60-70k/year for the average, and $120-150k/year for the stars”…another league would just come in and offer more. It really is a competitive market, and football players aren’t FORCED to play for the NFL. If the players feel like they don’t like it, or aren’t being paid enough, they are free to take their skills elsewhere, and if all the NFL’s stars decided to take their talents to the UFL…the UFL would become the top league in the country. The only reason you view it as a cartel is because the other leagues are SO FAR below what the NFL is, that it isn’t truly competitive. There is, however, a floor, and if the UFL gains popularity and, therefore, is able to increase salaries….you may see more players willing to go there. If a higher quality player is willing to go there….more people will watch…..they’ll make more money….pay their players more….and be able to attract a higher quality player. The cycle repeats. At some point, the NFL DOES need to operate as a competitive business if they let it get to that point. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, and sooner than you think. A lockout (or strike) could do quite a bit to help the UFL and put them on the path to relative equality with the NFL. If the lockout (strike) were to go on for something ridiculous like 3-4 consecutive years, you could see that league (or the Arena league or, god forbid, the CFL, or another league entirely) surpass the NFL and become the new standard bearer.
]]>By: J2ThaROC31http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780231
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:25:24 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780231bigbluefla says:
September 17, 2010 9:46 AM
Hey Patrian
“I can actually afford good baseball seats.”
you must not be a Yankees fan
…
Thank God.
]]>By: DikShuttlehttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780230
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:24:48 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780230@ Strick – hey – it worked, didn’t it?
]]>By: Steve W.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780229
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:17:01 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780229There’s actually a fairly easy compromise to be found if both sides are willing to look for it. The owners are worried that the current revenue share is unsustainable, and the players are simply worried about not losing what they already have.
How about this for a compromise? Do the expansion to 18 games that the owners want so that overall revenue will be increased. Then, move away from the revenue percentage model for this one cba and create a hybrid salary structure. Take last years numbers and use that as the base for the overall player salary. In other words, whatever 60% of this past years revenues were will be the allotted total salary for players in the first year of the cba. The players keep what they have, and the owners start out with the initial revenue boost that the switch to 18 regular season games would bring. Now, from this point, you peg the change in total player salary to the change in revenue. If revenue goes up by 3%, then the total player salary pool goes up by 3%. Both sides will benefit proportionally from any increased success of the league, but since the owners start out with more, their increase is greater. Of course, a new rookie salary structure would have to be included as well, but both sides are already willing to work together on that.
You set up this cba as a seven year contract, with either side being able to void it after five years if it turns out to be too disadvantageous to either side.
]]>By: contracthttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780228
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:01:46 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780228“Again, hate to bring up basic economics, but a frightening number of my fellow citizens don’t understand the principles: The players will receive what the market dictates.”
Hauschild: The owners don’t want to pay what the market dictates. That’s why the NFL has a college draft, restricted free agency and a salary cap.
]]>By: Creativefreakhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780227
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:55:28 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780227I realize business is business…but I’m sure the fans (you know, the people who make all this possible) have NO sympathy for hundreds of millionaires arguing about who gets more money! Seriously…figure it out, rub some dirt on it and get back in the game!
]]>By: Krowhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780226
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:51:59 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780226A ‘union’ of millionaires is a joke anyway. Better to call it a yacht club… or a Porsche owners association. Stop stealing credibility from real unions.
]]>By: Steve W.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780225
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:50:29 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780225@ mbbrazi
Do you realize the level of competition that exists for these pro sports jobs, or the amount of work required to successfully obtain them? Look, I think some of these salaries are ridiculous too, but saying it’s not real work is just ridiculous. Yes, they may be playing games that we also enjoy playing, but there’s a big difference between the effort we put in to have a little fun, and the work they have to put in to properly condition themselves to be able to do it professionally. Put simply, this is their job, the same as whatever you do is your job. The only difference is that their job is probably a lot harder to both get and keep.
]]>By: Steve W.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780224
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:42:20 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780224@ Hauschild
As someone who has an Economics degree, let me correct a couple of mistakes you made.
1. The NFL isn’t a free market. If it were, there would be no draft (most starting employees can’t seek out their own employer), no salary cap or floor, no franchise tag, and certainly no restricted free agency. With all of these tools in place, the NFL functions more as a cartel (OPEC is an example of a cartel), in which a limited number of companies work together to control the market as much as possible. While Cartels do help to increase the profit margin of its members, they also create certain market failures and negative externalities. The only real way to deal with this issue is government regulation or cooperation amongst those they deal with. In this case the player’s union. Whether you like unions or not, they do serve a purpose. For instance, the labor safety laws never would have come about if not for unions. Having said that, not all unions are equal. In a situation like this, if both sides are rational and willing to compromise, both sides profit. If not, the market is thrown into disarray. Here’s hoping for some rationality.
2. Your incorrect as to the real cause of the problems in France and Greece. I’ve studied the issue directly in several courses. In fact, one of my grad courses dealt with nothing but this issue. The issue isn’t unions, it’s the government. These countries are parliamentary in nature, meaning that instead of having two or three major political parties, they have many smaller parties. Each party has it’s own focus, and in order to put together a national ruling government, multiple parties must come together and form a coalition. This means that there are constant deals being made, as well as constant efforts to appease the people so as to garner as much support as possible for your coalition. The oldest, and still widely used approach in these places, is the old bread and circuses approach. The government mandates high pensions, some at relatively young ages. The higher pensions require more money per retiree to keep the programs afloat. Since the retirement ages tend to be lower than here in America, it also means that there are fewer workers to contribute to the pension fund. It also doesn’t help that the population in many western nations is shrinking, with the larger demographics being older individuals. America, by the way, is one of the few western nations with an increasing population. The native population is pretty much pinned at the restoration rate (enough kids to keep the population stable), with immigrants and their children (immigrants tend to have higher fertility rates for about two or three generations) making up the largest part of the population increase. For the other western nations, all of these factors put tremendous stress on public funds, and dramatically increases taxes and other deductions for workers. This in turn weakens the economy and creates instability within the currency. The only thing keeping some of these nations’ economies from collapsing is that some of the other nations (Germany for instance) still have strong economies, which has served to somewhat stabilize the Euro. The pressure put on these nations, however, has caused some problems for the stronger economies as well. It’s also created a fair amount of resentment between the more robust nations in the EU, and the ones that are hurting the currency.
Well, given the length of this post, I hope you can see why I don’t normally like to break out the Economics-based explanations. Since you went down that path (and got a little off track), however, here’s my correction.
]]>By: Shark839http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780223
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:41:04 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780223“Look I dislike Jerry Jones and his ilk more than most, but the players are greedy, exemplified by the likes of VJax and Revis…”
You may not like Jerry but if you want to talk about risk. He sunk ALL of his money into the Dallas Cowboys, while they were losing money.
Does he deserve to reap the rewards now? Is that America?
]]>By: Insomniachttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780222
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:38:52 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780222If there is decertification, will the draft also be an antitrust issue?
]]>By: Patsfan1776http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780221
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:15:08 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780221The owners and players really believe that the fans need the NFL like crackheads need crack. They are sadly mistaken and will find out when they go on strike/lockout/decertify etc.
]]>By: longestlegshttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780220
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:13:01 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780220ESPN and other news outlets have reported that the share is 60%, which owners want to bump down to 50%.
]]>By: petrohttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780219
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:08:31 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780219At the time of my post, Andy Reid called his 3rd and final timeout and it’s only 11:07 am EDT. Geez, the big guy’s lunch plans will surely be rushed. (And I’m an Eagles fan).
]]>By: palewookhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780218
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:05:52 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780218smelling another long court case that ends in a 1 dollar judgment coming
]]>By: CHIEF ZEEhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780217
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:03:03 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780217Rex Ryan wants a snack
]]>By: LAEaglefanhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780216
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:59:42 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780216The fans who actually do pay the money to go to these games should teach the owners AND the players a good lesson….and just stay home! By forcing a lockout the owners are just spitting in the face of the very people who make all of this possible in the first place. They complain about players wanting to renegotiate and holding out with years left on their contracts, but that’s exactly what they did when they voided the final years of the contract with the NFLPA. Now, instead of all of the posturing and legal maneuvering, whey don’t the two sides just sit down and hammer this thing out with each other, put it all to rest, and play some football? I guess that’s far too logical to expect.
]]>By: PFTiswhatitishttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780215
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:53:05 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780215Wouldnt the Union actually be risking a lot to decertify?
]]>By: RobF2010http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780214
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:52:13 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780214To Derrick:
Where did you get the 59% figure? Did you get a look at the books that the owners won’t show the union? It may very well be accurate but there is no way anyone should take the owners’ word for it.
]]>By: EasyDrinkingBuschLighthttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780213
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:47:22 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780213The players aren’t the ones asking for more money, the owners are.
]]>By: awdlmdhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/17/eagles-cowboys-players-authorize-union-decertification/#comment-780212
Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:44:55 +0000http://localhost/wp/nbcprofootballtalk/?p=81149#comment-780212“The owners took risks, especially the older owners and their decendents who started this whole thing.”
I wouldn’t consider being born to a rich daddy with a pro sports team to be a huge risk (cough Mike Brown).
The owners are going to kill the golden goose with their greed. They are not negotiating in good faith and are trying to intimidate the players (ie the ones that actually have to suit up and play on Sundays) into taking a drastic cut in their share.
]]>